As special counsel Robert Mueller builds his case, relatives of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn are among those pressing the president to use his unique legal power and ‘put these defendants out of their misery.’

PRAGUE — The European Union is at a crossroads. Some have called for the creation of a “two-speed Europe,” in which a small group of EU countries pursue tighter integration, leaving those unwilling to follow on the periphery.

This would be a mistake, and a dangerous one.

Critics of the EU sometimes reproach the bloc for inefficiency and mock our sometimes drawn out-efforts to seek compromises. They call for a strong hand, for clear, fast and simple solutions.

But it’s exactly this approach — seeking compromises without excluding any country from the decision — that is the essence of the integration process and the key behind the bloc’s success in overcoming crises and thorny issues.

Compromises sometimes leave all parties equally dissatisfied. But they do something important: They make sure no country is sidelined or defeated. And they preserve the most important aspect of the bloc: our unity.

“Our shared European history shows that when we fail to work together, we see conflict, division and war” — Bohuslav Sobotka

The EU’s strength lies in collaboration and unity. If we don’t face our challenges together, we will not solve them at all.

The fall of the Iron Curtain was a leap forward for the entire Continent, as was the enlargement of the EU to establish a peaceful post-war order.

European integration is a long-term process, and there’s more than one way to pursue it. But one thing is certain: If the EU does not maintain the trust of all its citizens and the enthusiasm of the member states, the integration process of the union will not advance.

I do not doubt that it can sometimes feel expedient to move forward with a limited group of countries. The abolishment of border controls and creation of the passport-free Schengen area, for instance, began as an agreement between just a few states. But we cannot allow this method to become the go-to solution for every issue on which we have trouble agreeing.

We have to ensure no country faces a closed door. The possibility to cooperate should be provided to everybody. Breaking our union into sharply defined categories would go against the spirit of the European treaties and only come back to haunt us.

I was reminded of this last month when I gathered with my fellow EU leaders at the Social Summit in Gothenburg on November 17. That day is a symbolic date for Czechs, and Slovaks. It commemorates a student uprising in Prague in 1939 that was brutally repressed by the country’s Nazi occupiers. More than 1,000 students were sent to concentration camps; nine were executed.

Fifty years later, in 1989, young Czechoslovaks commemorated the event by staging a march that would come to symbolize the fall of the Iron Curtain in our country. It is a testament to how far the Czech Republic has come that this year, as prime minister, I could spend November 17 discussing labor policies and growth with democratically-elected European leaders.

Today, our country’s success depends on its membership to the EU. It would be a fatal error to believe we could succeed alone in an increasingly interconnected world. Nor should we underestimate the value of being a reliable partner to other EU members.

The Czech Republic wants to be at the core of the EU’s transformation. As prime minister, I have fully supported the deeper integration of European structures during my term, and I am confident the next government will continue in this effort when I leave office in mid-December.

Successful integration is also in our interest even in areas in which we are not currently taking part, most notably the eurozone. The government I led has made considerable progress in improving the budgetary, social and economic conditions necessary for a successful adoption of the euro.

Europe, if it wants to remain unified, can’t forget about those waiting behind the door. The Western Balkans have proven again and again that they are ready to work on the necessary reforms. The EU should welcome these countries as soon as they have fulfilled their criteria.

They all deserve the same chance of a European future that was granted to the Czech Republic. They do not need to join the club tomorrow, but they do need us to keep the door open.

The EU’s strength lies in collaboration and unity. If we don’t face our challenges together, we will not solve them at all.

PB

Someone should explain to him how the Eurozone works quick and then explain to him the Greek crisis to wake him from his blissful ignorance.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 9:51 AM CET

Johann M. Wolff

Just please, put Germany in whichever x speed Europe you want, just not in the same group as France. Otherwise we will end up financing grandiose ideas sold us solidarity which will benefit just only one country.

“We have to ensure no country faces a closed door. The possibility to cooperate should be provided to everybody.”

Weird kind of view. The Czech Republic is free to join the Euro. Why does the author blame other countries for using the Euro? He wants to forbid EU member states to go into deeper integration because his country doesn’t want to take part in this — and then he calls it “closed doors” even though his country is welcome to join as soon as it wants.

Johann M. Wolff: yes, use, the eternal French man. He got nothing in his mind but stealing German money and no one will notice it — except those little, poor, uneducated Germans in the beer gardens. Some of you Germans will problably never change. You change take another enemy for the same propaganda.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:10 AM CET

Burgundian

Two speed Europe, how quaint.

First, Europe doesn’t equal EU, and second, EU is already in three speeds.

There is the ruling core (Germany, France, Benelux, Scandinavia) that profit most from EU, then there is the periphery (Iberians, Italy, Poland, Czechia, Baltics) that benefits somewhat from the EU and then there is the outer rim of remaining countries that benefit from EU marginally at best.

The periphery and the outer rim serve core the same way colonial empire served the Britain in the past, and EU depends on South and East being source of cheap labour and market for their goods, as well as a potential dumping ground for unwanted migrants / refugees.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:16 AM CET

trisul

A completely ridiculous approach to take. The EU is divided into two groups:
a) Those wishing tighter integration and willing to transfer some sovereignty to Brussels.
b) Those who wish even less integration, just access to markets and are not prepared to relinquish any sovereignty.

Saying “no two Europes” really means “supporting option b”. In a two-speed Europe, both groups get EXACTLY what they claim to want, why would group “b” object to other countries giving away their own sovereignty?

Analysing this, we find out that “group b” really wants to prevent a stronger EU, which is also Putin’s goal, Trump’s goal and Xi’s wish. How can this be good for the EU, if all our competitors love it?

In two-speed Europe, group “b” loses nothing. Nothing at all. For them, everything stays exactly as it is, but others get to progress.

What I see is that people opposing tighter integration do not want OTHERS to do it either. They seek to prevent the EU from becoming strong … and THAT is the mistake, not a two-speed Europe.

The alternative to 2-speed Europe is to get the sceptics out of the EU altogether, and that have really be a mistake. 2-speed Europe is the only alternative left. Imperfect, but much better than status-quo or kicking out the doubters.

trisul

The Europe outside the EU is not worth the name. It is more Central Asian or American than European in culture and outlook.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:19 AM CET

Andreas

We have the 2-Speed EU already and that is good, otherwise there would be no progress at all. trisul comments that correctly. We cannot wait for some other members, especially when they have a completely different agenda as the Visegrad countries for example. We drag them along and finance them, but they are twenty years back in their heads. With time this problem will solve itself hopefully.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:39 AM CET

Orthogonal (formerly Chris)

If the definition of a two-speed (or multi-speed) Europe is where groups of countries are more tightly integrated than the EU treaties dictate, then there has been a long tradition of this already. For example, the Benelux countries, the Schengen area and the Eurozone.
The external appearance of the tighter integrated area must adhere to the normal EU rules that govern inter-country relations. In theory, this should not create any disharmony in the EU. However, if these blocks become too large and powerful they must use the power responsibly otherwise it can tear the EU apart.
For example, the UK stayed out of the Euro and the Eurozone ganged up against the UK. It tried to wrestle the UK’s finance industry away from London by trying to steal the UK’s clearing of Euro-denominated instruments, by introducing a financial transaction tax and by capping bankers bonuses. Such actions were a major reason why the UK proposed the brexit referendum.
Recently President Juncker has put pressure on eastern European governments to join the Schengen area. And there is also pressure on eastern European countries to accept refugees, even though this is outside the EU’s competence.
So why is the prime minister of the Czech Republic against a two-speed Europe ?
1. Because he does not want his country to be bullied by a group of powerful countries
2. Because further integration will involve more cash transfers to poorer countries. He does not want to be excluded from being a recipient of this money.
There is not so much incentive for a country to stay in the EU if it is going to be the whipping boy and it does not receive sufficient financial benefits. It might be better off in a much looser free-trading region.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:40 AM CET

Klaus W.

@Johann M Wolff
“Just please, put Germany in whichever x speed Europe you want, just not in the same group as France. Otherwise we will end up financing grandiose ideas sold us solidarity which will benefit just only one country.”

This is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that, as the EU has lost the United Kingdom, so Germany has lost its most like-minded and pragmatic ally.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:46 AM CET

Klaus W.

@rolle
“Johann M. Wolff: yes, use, the eternal French man. He got nothing in his mind but stealing German money and no one will notice it — except those little, poor, uneducated Germans in the beer gardens.”

Throwing gratuitous insults around does not make you look any more intelligent or educated.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:54 AM CET

Burgundian

@trisul

“The Europe outside the EU is not worth the name. It is more Central Asian or American than European in culture and outlook.”

And what country do you hail form, oh anointed one? I’m sure we could find plenty of faults with it and your background. For starters, you sound like a disgusting third-world authoritarian that would fit perfectly in say Zimbabwe, or politburo of now defunct USSR.

Europe isn’t yours to rule, divide or organize.

And your “b” group has all to lose since your “a” group would hold all the power, even more than it does now.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:54 AM CET

Burgundian

@Andreas

You drag them along out of pure goodness of your noble liberal europhile heart, right?

You are exploiting them for your profit, europhile.

But hey, why not make the system to leave EU simpler and easier, and let’s see how many stick around.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 10:57 AM CET

Orthogonal (formerly Chris)

@Burgundian

The precedent has already been set to make leaving the EU simpler and easier. Poorer countries leaving the EU will receive a divorce payment to take account of future commitments that the EU would have paid to that country.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 11:03 AM CET

Burgundian

@Orthogonal (formerly Chris)

Precedent – an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

The precedent doesn’t exist since event as such didn’t occur. Brexit isn’t finalized yet and even if it was UK isn’t one of poorer countries.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 11:22 AM CET

guilherme

trisul:
“but much better than status-quo or kicking out the doubters” – yes kicking out “the doubters” would maybe mean more limited access to the relatively big market, also to a well qualified and cheap labour. Your idea is to maintain the colonialist attitude to Central and Eastern European EU members: they should accept without any critics the decisions of the “core” members and to behave as submissively as possible. There are divergences between the “core members” due to national interests also but these are accepted as natural, whereas the interests of “peripheral nations” are treated with the typical arrogance of the rich.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 11:26 AM CET

François P

“I do not doubt that it can sometimes feel expedient to move forward with a limited group of countries. […] But we cannot allow this method to become the go-to solution for every issue on which we have trouble agreeing.”

I agree in principle. In practice, this ‘multispeed’ approach has been used sparingly: Schengen, the Euro, and now defence. I regard it as an appropriate approach if participation in such projects doesn’t have major drawbacks for the non-participants, and if non-participation doesn’t have major drawbacks for the participants. The Euro passes this test, but not the single market for example.

“We have to ensure no country faces a closed door. The possibility to cooperate should be provided to everybody. Breaking our union into sharply defined categories would go against the spirit of the European treaties and only come back to haunt us.”

Fully agree. But this is a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting ‘closed doors’ or ‘sharply defined categories’. In fact, it is because some countries want to stay out of some projects such as the Euro that there is a need for differentiated integration.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 11:59 AM CET

François P

@trisul

“What I see is that people opposing tighter integration do not want OTHERS to do it either. They seek to prevent the EU from becoming strong … and THAT is the mistake, not a two-speed Europe.”

+1

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:08 PM CET

maciekimaciek

We can not have united EU and two-speed or multi-speed EU at the same time.
Multi-speed EU is just a new call of federationists.

Let me recall everyone here, trisul and Andreas included that as recent polls show only 8% of Europeans is for closer institutional co-operation within th EU, while more than 70% /seventy %/
is against.
EU federation is good for the EU beaurocrats, not the EU citizens.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:13 PM CET

Vishnou

Two-speed is a reality, ideologically and economically: so why not accept it instead of denying it? A club is composed of different categories of members: full ones, associate ones, sympathisers. Advantages should be granted according to the status and the the level of involvement. Not on funding promises.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:20 PM CET

François P

@Orthogonal

Another example of the sick mind of the brexiteers at work.

“Recently President Juncker has put pressure on eastern European governments to join the Schengen area.”

It is exactly the reverse. The 3 Eastern European countries outside the Schengen Area (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia) want to join the Schengen Area ASAP. Juncker expressed his support for that, against the opposition of countries such as the Netherlands.

“And there is also pressure on eastern European countries to accept refugees, even though this is outside the EU’s competence.”

Asylum policy is an EU competence for those countries belonging to the Schengen Area. This has been the case since the late nineties.

“There is not so much incentive for a country to stay in the EU if it is going to be the whipping boy and it does not receive sufficient financial benefits. It might be better off in a much looser free-trading region.”

Basically stating that the Czech Republic is no more than a beggar. Disgusting.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:22 PM CET

Vishnou

@maciekimaciek
Well this is not on. The EU is not a souk, a mere bazaar where anybody can pick anything that suits him and reject the rest. Even more so, bargaining its basic principles and values. Forget it.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:25 PM CET

Martin

But one thing is certain: If the EU does not maintain the trust of all its citizens and the enthusiasm of the member states, the integration process of the union will not advance.

Judging by Brexit, the latest round of elections, the Catalonia crisis etc. That’s exactly where we are at. And in no small part because of the idiotic launch of a common currency without political union and a big bang enlargement way too soon. Leaving western voters seething with resentment.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:29 PM CET

Johann M. Wolff

@rolle

Oh well rolle, I have to disappoint you, I don’t like beer and wont spend time in beer tents.

However I’m closely following up German-French projects like Airbus and currently the KMW+Nexter Defense Systems which was highly harmful for Germany: joint venture on a 50:50 base when Nexter was producing tanks for 3rd world countries (ex-colonies) and KMW had the Leopard 2 sold to developed nations. I can foresee the joint venture ending up like Airbus, merging another insignificant French company in just to hold the majority of the shares.

Other French project is the common Eurobonds. Here nothing to add, all very clear.

I fully agree with previous comments that with the departure of Great Britain Germany lost its most pragmatic partner.
God should save us (and the Queen on the other side of the canal).

Posted on 12/6/17 | 12:30 PM CET

Saintixe

The notion of no two speed Europe is to prevent countries effectively happy to be more cooperative to cooperate more. Thus his one speed Europe is a form of tyranny.
Nope, does not see it like this.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 2:26 PM CET

wow

@trisul

‘“The Europe outside the EU is not worth the name. It is more Central Asian or American than European in culture and outlook.”

And yet the largest european country is Russia. It is the largest country by land mass in the *whole world* and is bigger than the EU27 all on it’s own. If you weren;t awae it has one of the permanent UN seats (as does UK) and one of only 5 powers allowed nukes.

You really are ignorant aren’t you?

If you weren’t aware. The fake ‘europe’ constantly worries about the largest country in actual europe. UK not so much as we are geo-politically independent from you and far from Russia. We can act independently and move around the world and receive trade due to our geographical position, without asking permission from anyone.

The EU27 has to ask us to get past our waters, has to ask Russia, has to ask Turkey… etc. You’re a geographical dead parrot of Pythonesque (monty) hilarity, which is why you will amount to nothing. The USA does not have these problems. Please look on a map and have a light bulb moment that explains 500 years of history and why UK/USA always does so well.

Cheerio Now.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 3:03 PM CET

wow

*China doesn’t have these problems either, it is just the EU27 geographical-political position which is shocking.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 3:05 PM CET

dc

I agree with Mr Sobotka – ‘Two-speed Europe is a mistake’ and maintaining that situation will lead to problems or even fall of the EU.

Currently we have two main models within the EU:
1. Central European countries with V4 at its core with: quickly growing GDP, record low unemployment, relatively low debt, ZERO terror attacks, with security of citizens as top priority, respect for European culture and values, governments listening and generally following citizens opinions,
2. ‘old’ EU countries with: weak GDP growth and persistent unemployment (especially youth unemployment) – in some of them; worsening security situation and inadequate authorities reactions (German police made ‘gross mistakes’ before Berlin Christmas attack); disrespect for citizens opinions, rights, rule of law – in practically all of them (Bundestag Scientific Office’s opinion that Merkel’s decision to open borders to immigrants from all over the world had no legal grounds; constantly extended ‘state of emergency’ in France depriving citizens of their basic rights which UN human rights experts and both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned; Spanish government sending police to beat peaceful citizens, imprisoning opposition members, etc.), hostility towards European culture and values.

It can’t go on like this. Finally one of the models has to prevail all over the EU.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 3:35 PM CET

Orthogonal (formerly Chris)

@Francois P

Sorry to disgust you – that was not my intention. The fact of the matter is that in budgetary terms the Czech Republic is a net beneficiary of payments from the EU. If enhanced solidarity payments from richer countries are to be diverted to just a subset of countries, it is the duty of any prime minister of an excluded country to fight for these payments. I was not accusing him or his country of being beggars, rather I was recognizing his duty to ensure that payments are distributed fairly.
My recognition over concerns about bullying are real. If we disagree about Schengen and refugees (I think you may have forgotten to take the Dublin agreement into account), then there are still many other examples. For example, Macron’s attempts to dilute the posted workers directive. That is targeted at eastern European workers. I am not alone in this thinking – you might have noticed that there are many eastern Europeans commenting on here complaining about bullying by western European countries (France and Germany in particular).
I’m not against a two speed Europe. I’m just saying that if there is one it needs to be done in such a way that countries left outside a grouping are not disadvantaged or bullied by countries in the inner grouping. I have often stated that the Eurozone is an unfinished project and there will need to be greater integration. But greater integration should be achieved by countries wanting to do it, rather than them being bullied into it. Otherwise, you are forcing countries to do things that they don’t want to do and that can be destructive ….

Posted on 12/6/17 | 5:32 PM CET

Giuseppe Marrosu

Dear Sobotka, high speed EU should be open to anyone willing and able to join and accept its rules. Your country could join the Euro in 2 years and so join the Group. Where’s the problem?

Posted on 12/6/17 | 7:34 PM CET

Saintixe

@dc

It is lovely to hear about the V4 group. So European the 4 countries depend effectively from funds paid by the taxes of the EU countries whose model he despises.
Thus not only he favours countries whose democratic past is rather limited but also countries who are shamelessly reliant on the hard won money of people who want to cooperate peacefully in a model he abhors yet a model he and the V4 benefits financially.
Yes… smirking.
You may not like it but as long as we pay for you the least you can do is to let us evolve in more cooperation. Two speed Europe is effectively happening. Tough.

Posted on 12/6/17 | 11:16 PM CET

Johann M. Woff

@Saintixe

How did u calculate who is the net beneficiary and net contributor ? What is paid in and redistributed afterwards ? If so this doesn’t make economic sense and one who is economic illiterate perhaps should refrain from comments on complex cashflow calculations.

In the end, as of now, I wouldn’t like to be in a closer fiscal union with countries like France. If there would be 3 groups like Northen Europe, Southerm Europe and CE Europe this would make more sense.

Posted on 12/7/17 | 10:38 AM CET

dc

@Saintixe
Lovely story but how untrue.

“You may not like it but as long as we pay for you the least you can do is to let us evolve in more cooperation.”

V4 countries get some funds as a compensation for opening their markets when joining the EU, when their economies were weak and were not able to compete with Western companies of which Western companies benefited enormously.
What they did with those huge profits and whether citizens of net payers benefited from them – ask your governments as most of the Western companies profits have been transferred from V4 countries abroad – to Western EUrope or offshore accounts.
Additionally check EU treaties – there are no clauses there saying: “we pay you for doing what we want”, as these are not payments for services or being obedient but compensation.

In fact the opposite is true.
Apart form I think UK no other Western EU country meets 2% of GDP spent on defence target set by NATO.
So countries that meet that target like for example US, UK and Poland effectively subsidize Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, etc. which are far from that target.

So according to your “theory” as far as defense is concerned Western EU should listen and follow orders from US, UK and Poland ?

“Thus not only he favours countries whose democratic past is rather limited”

Particularly when major EU’s ‘engine’ is Germany with its dark past, where democracy had to be imposed by force after 5 years of blo0dy war and US occupation forces present until today supervising it, where even such basic, democratic tool as referendum available for citizens in any normal,democratic country is forbidden in Grundgesetz (as Germany does not even have a proper constitution) drafted by occupiers who were afraid of the voice of German citizens – saying something like that about V4 countries among which are those with longest democratic and parliamentary tradition in Europe, which for most of their history were diverse with different religions, ethnicities and even races living peacefully side by side while Western Europe fought bloody religious wars, discriminated people on the basis of religion, ethnicitiy or race in Europe itself as well as in colonies – is really HILARIOUS.

“Two speed Europe is effectively happening. ”

I agree – exactly as I described in my previous post.

Posted on 12/7/17 | 11:15 AM CET

tuciu

Summing up: “show your solidarity to my country, because we do deserve it. Do not expect any solidarity from my country, because it is alienating us from your community. Do no even think about putting your community on new foundation, because the new rules will no longer oblige you to show solidarity to my country if we do not reciprocate.”
Very convincing indeed. I did enjoy hearing from You.

Posted on 12/11/17 | 11:15 AM CET

Gerhard

Completely false. Amazing that those who so often exercise opposition, like in the refugee matter, on the other hand demand unanimity. The Czech Republic, together with Hungary and Poland, considers majority decisions taken by the Council not always as binding – that could be seen recently.
Therefore, they should be glad if they don’t have to follow what some call the “dictate” of Brussels.
But then, surprisingly, that is not what they want. No doubt, they would rather see their very own opinion become that of the majority, something that will not happen.
All this sounds like an Comic Opera – the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland don’t want to join the majority, but, at the same time, they don’t want that majority to take their own route.
Controlling, but not being controlled…Such behaviour very much reminds of the British who were in fierce opposition to a multi-speed Europe, fearing to be left behind and losing influence and control.